The Facts About Peat Soils in Sarawak, Malaysia

As you may have seen, there has been a lot of news from the palm oil industry in recent months, with companies like Hershey’s, L’Oréal, Kellogg’s, and Unilever committing to source deforestation- and peat-free palm oil. But it’s the announcement by Wilmar, the largest trader (and one of the largest producers) of palm oil, that is likely to have the greatest impact on the palm oil industry.

I asked my colleague, Lael Goodman, an analyst with the Tropical Forest Team and our resident peat expert, to explain the situation. Here’s what she had to say:

Wilmar’s announcement had three main points relating to peat soils.

Wilmar will not buy palm oil from plantations that have been established on peat soils of any depth after its December 5 announcement.

Wilmar will continue to buy palm oil from plantations that were established on peat soils prior to December 5, 2013. However, these plantations must follow a certain set of best practices guidelines by the end of 2015.

Wilmar will explore options for peatland restoration in some areas.

The peat swamp forests of Sarawak are being cut down to make way for oil palm plantations, releasing thousands of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. Photo: flickr/Wakx.

One of the most vocal groups concerned with these new policies is the Sarawak Oil Palm Plantation Owner’s Association (SOPPOA), which represents oil palm plantation owners in the Malaysian state on the island of Borneo. Sarawak is rich in peat soils, so this new policy could have real implications for where oil palm plantations can expand in that state.

The SOPPOA is making claims that currently there are no credible scientific studies to justify the policy of ‘No Peat’ planting because all planters in the Sarawak adhere to the Malaysian Palm Oil Board’s Best Management practices for planting on peat, which they claim are scientifically sound and sustainable. Additionally, in a newspaper article, a SOPPOA spokesperson is quoted as saying that there is not a scientific consensus that peat has either high carbon stock or releases high levels of carbon dioxide. All of these statements are scientifically untrue.

Draining peat soils releases carbon dioxide

While high water tables are responsible for preventing the organic material from decaying, the flipside is that when these peat soils are drained, they are again exposed to oxygen.

As organic material decays, the embodied carbon, much of which has been building for thousands of years, is released as carbon dioxide. While intact peatlands also emit carbon dioxide, it has been shown that disturbed peatlands lose carbon not only from the upper levels of soil and from plant growth, but also the carbon that has been stored in the soil for centuries. And many studies (like this one) have shown that planting oil palm on peat soils leads to carbon dioxide emissions.

In its introduction, these guidelines make the point that, “It is the prerogative of any government to develop its land resources for the socio-economic benefit of its people.” However, it does not then necessarily follow that these practices are, as stated previously, “scientifically sound and sustainable.”

A worker carries an oil palm sapling onto smoldering peatlands in the Indonesian province of Sumatra. Drained peat soils are particularly flammable, and peat fires can burn for weeks or even months. Photo: Paul Hilton Photography

By far the largest problem is that these guidelines do not take into account the enormous importance, both in terms of carbon and biodiversity, of these lands. Other than recommending that a survey “study” the biodiversity, hydrology, peat soil characteristics, potential yield, and social impact on local communities, there is very little on which areas of land should be left undeveloped.

The only explicit guidance is that it is recommended that the “top part of the peat dome be not developed, but kept as a high conservation value forest and water catchment area.” This shows a lack of understanding of the hydrology of peat domes. Peat domes are sensitive ecosystems, such that changes (e.g. draining for agriculture) in one part of the dome could have cascading effects elsewhere.

The MPOB guidelines also allow for controlled fires. However, drained tropical peat soils are extremely flammable and in the past have gotten out of control, causing fires that have raged for months, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and causing health concerns. During particularly dry years, such as 1997, fires burning peat and vegetation in Indonesia released an amount of carbon equivalent to 13 to 40 percent of mean global carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Just this year, it has been reported that there have been more than 7,000 bush and peat fires in Malaysia since the beginning of February.

Wilmar’s peat-free palm oil policy does not mean it will stop sourcing palm oil from Sarawak, but rather that it recognizes that peatlands are a valuable resource to be protected. Around 71 percent of oil palm plantations in Sarawak are located on non-peat soils, so Wilmar can continue to source from those plantations. Further, Wilmar’s policy doesn’t prohibit it from sourcing from the 29 percent of palm plantations currently established on peat, only that those plantations use best management practices to reduce carbon emissions and environmental damage.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

Lael Goodman

Hi Rory,

Thanks for directing me to this paper. It raises a lot of good points and the list of questions is definitely thought provoking. It looks like you and your colleagues are making some great contributions to the field of tropical peat literature.

Here’s hoping we get some of these questions answered and have improved communication to the broader public and to help inform policy.

To contribute to the comments and general discussion here, I’d like to draw your attention to a paper published this week on ‘Research agendas for the sustainable management of tropical peatland in Malaysia’ (available for download here: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/92219/)

Some of the issues you raise resonate with the stakeholders engaged in this particular exercise. We are looking at how we can bring this research agenda to governmental levels in the Malaysian context.

Best wishes,

Rory Padfield

Lael Goodman

Thanks for the comments, Richard.

With so few intact or only slightly degraded peatlands, it is critical that we prioritize protection of these lands. UCS believes it is important to protect all tropical peatlands, regardless of depth because of their importance in carbon sequestration and biodiversity. So any degradation of peatlands is too much!

While it is estimated that around 29% of current oil palm plantations in Sarawak are on peatlands, that doesn’t mean that around 71% of the total land in Sarawak is available for development. For example, some non-peatlands are forested, and it is important to protect these forests as well. Global production of palm oil continues to rise, but you are correct, future palm oil supplies cannot come from peatlands.

And I definitely agree with your assessment. Getting companies to commit to steps such as best management is truly only the first piece. It remains to be seen how implementation will occur. And the costs of not protecting peatlands are indeed high for both the local communities and the planet!

The key facts seem to be that only 10% of peatlands remain intact or only slightly degraded. Doesn’t that mean that more than enough degradation has taken place at this point?

Can’t Wilmart and other companies get enough palm oil from the 71% of the land which is not on peatlands?

Regarding the other 29%, the operative phrase is ‘best management practices to reduce carbon emissions and environmental damage.’ Getting Wilmart and other producers to really do that is a huge battle, to be sure.’ They will argue that ‘it costs too much.’ We should argue that we can pay for it now or pay, much more, for it later!

Support Our Work

Stay Informed

Spam Control Text:
Please leave this field empty

Calen May-Tobin, was a lead analyst with the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative, conducting research on palm-related deforestation and how to reduce the land-use carbon footprint of the palm oil industry.